Tadcaster Bridge Collapses

[velocemitch]

Common sense largely left the construction industry some time ago.

Mind you as I did say earlier the state of the existing structure must be a big unknown at the moment, nobody is going to want to put their knob on the block and say it's safe until they really know. Would you?.

[THUNDER STORM]

If those supports are holding the road up between them, then it will hold the said means of crossing that I suggested and this type of foot bridge could be raised at higher than the road and still supported even if road falls away. Get on with it.

Ade

[ATTAK Z]

THUNDER STORM said:

If those supports are holding the road up between them, then it will hold the said means of crossing that I suggested and this type of foot bridge could be raised at higher than the road and still supported even if road falls away. Get on with it.

Ade

What size RSJs would you suggest ?

Just askin'

[THUNDER STORM]

ATTAK Z said:

THUNDER STORM said:

If those supports are holding the road up between them, then it will hold the said means of crossing that I suggested and this type of foot bridge could be raised at higher than the road and still supported even if road falls away. Get on with it.

Ade

What size RSJs would you suggest ?

Just askin'

Without knowing the length to span, and thickness of checker plate (For wieght calculation) or even thick marine ply (lighter) I would be guessing, probably next size up from 6"x8" for more safety factor. Been out of industry too long to know whats available, but todays engineers should have all that data available and can now be done with CAD on a computer, simples.

Ade

[DMN]

Even York Press are brave enough to risk the lawyers of the feudal lord:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14200874.An_open_l...

[velocemitch]

Serious accident on the A64 this morning, first of many I expect as people try to negotiate the slip roads.

[Wingo]

I don't think this accident where it might be expected to be, on a Junction.

However if what I witnessed last Wednesday, traffic stopping on the main carriageway to let traffic out of an on slip is anything to go by then the frequency of collisions on the A64 is only going to go one way.

Whoever thought that saving money by not having access to both east and westbound carriageways having all three "tadcaster" junctions on the A64 needs

That makes sense for all users of the A64 when there are problems.

Wingo

[All that jazz]

DMN said:

Owner of Samual Smiths showing his charitable side again...

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14195726.Flooding_...

Having read the article in full and Humphrey Smith's concerns I don't see what people are up in arms about. His concerns are perfectly reasonable imho. This comment sums it up well :

commenter said:

The brewery said-It said: "The danger is if the footbridge (which won’t be a thing of beauty) is built in isolation in such a sensitive position and the listed road bridge is handed back to public use in a year or so without adequate pavement and carriageway widths, the public pressure to retain the footbridge after the restoration will be considerable."

Then-But Nigel Adams rubbished the brewery's suggestions that the temporary bridge could end up becoming permanent, saying "I think the clue is in the word temporary."

Now for the clincher- Mr Bowe also told the meeting that they were looking at alternative sites for the footbridge within 50m of the bridge, where landowners were being supportive.

He spoke of proposals for permanent improvements like a separate footbridge once the old bridge is repaired.

Seems Mr Smith is right to have concerns IMHO. Never thought I would say that. If that temp footbridge is already there then it's a fait accompli. It would be extremely hard to justify building another bridge at that time. Stick to your guns Mr Smith, I think you might be seeing the picture far better than many others.

If he just sits back and says "OK, get on with it" then I too can see the "temporary" bridge suddenly becoming permanent and the road bridge being rebuilt without any adequate provisions for pedestrians because of the existence of the temporary bridge. Of course all the locals don't care about any of this, they just want a way of getting to the other side of the river ASAP and as they don't own the land nor will they be picking up the tab then it's hardly surprising to see all the hate directed at Humphrey Smith.

[hidetheelephants]

If he was genuinely concerned about that there are myriad ways of achieving it, not least by offering the use of his land at peppercorn rent for 18 months then a steep rise thereafter, encouraging the council to get on with it. As it is he's either terrible at PR or is just stirring because he's a massive tool.

[Mr Whippy]

velocemitch said:

Mr Whippy said:

£3 million.

Sounds completely reasonable. I bet the breakdown would be scary. £100,000 tops on actual labour and materials for the person doing the job proper?


As per A64 junctions, surely they should be top priority now. Disasters should be an excuse to cut red tape and stop land campers and planning idiocy and just get them built for the benefit of the many, which is exactly what Tad needs right now!

Reasonable or unreasonable?
Know much about this sort of thing do you?

It sounds like you do, so break it down for me if you'd like.

How much is actual materials and labour applying those materials?


I'm not even sure what the quote covers so far, but given I've heard they want to recover original stone from the river bed, £1,000,000 of that budget is probably having teams sifting through thousands of tons of silt for a hundred yards down river looking for cap stones and stuff.


Basically, it all sounds lovely but there are times when we hang on to the past too much... especially when it's costing progress today. Just smash it down and build a new one already!


This is just like Kex Gill on the A59. They've spent millions there over the years and now it's just beyond a joke. Build a new better road around to the North and have done! In the meantime it's costing us money and economic prosperity in these areas while 'planning' types waft around their stupid ideas.

[DMN]

hidetheelephants said:

just stirring because he's a massive tool.

Thats not far off.

[Mr Whippy]

DMN said:

hidetheelephants said:

just stirring because he's a massive tool.

Thats not far off.

From what I over hear just sat in a few nearby Sam Smiths pubs, he sounds like a pain in the arse to work for!

[velocemitch]

Mr Whippy said:

velocemitch said:

Mr Whippy said:

£3 million.

Sounds completely reasonable. I bet the breakdown would be scary. £100,000 tops on actual labour and materials for the person doing the job proper?


As per A64 junctions, surely they should be top priority now. Disasters should be an excuse to cut red tape and stop land campers and planning idiocy and just get them built for the benefit of the many, which is exactly what Tad needs right now!

Reasonable or unreasonable?
Know much about this sort of thing do you?

It sounds like you do, so break it down for me if you'd like.

How much is actual materials and labour applying those materials?


I'm not even sure what the quote covers so far, but given I've heard they want to recover original stone from the river bed, £1,000,000 of that budget is probably having teams sifting through thousands of tons of silt for a hundred yards down river looking for cap stones and stuff.


Basically, it all sounds lovely but there are times when we hang on to the past too much... especially when it's costing progress today. Just smash it down and build a new one already!


This is just like Kex Gill on the A59. They've spent millions there over the years and now it's just beyond a joke. Build a new better road around to the North and have done! In the meantime it's costing us money and economic prosperity in these areas while 'planning' types waft around their stupid ideas.

Not sure what relevance the cost of material versus labour is. It's the same with anything you buy how much cost of the average car is the raw materials and how much is other things?. At least with a Car you know what you are building and you repeat it thousands of times. When you build (or repair) a Bridge like this it's a one off, they won't build another quite like it ever again. The span will be different, the supporting structures different, the height above the supports different, the angle of the approach ramps different.

That figure of 3 million, either was already worked out long before this happened or it just somebodies best guess. The actual figure might be less it might be more, I doubt anybody knows that just yet because they don't know what they are dealing with. How much of the remaining Bridge is retainable, how much demolition is required, how badly damaged are the services, what are the medium term costs of diverting them. The cost of the temporary footbridge has to be considered. Talk of providing a permanent footbridge may mean they are having to consider that cost. There wouldn't be much change out of Three Million just for a new Footbridge, depending on how attractive they wanted it.

[Hooli]

All that jazz said:

DMN said:

Owner of Samual Smiths showing his charitable side again...

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14195726.Flooding_...

Having read the article in full and Humphrey Smith's concerns I don't see what people are up in arms about. His concerns are perfectly reasonable imho. This comment sums it up well :

commenter said:

The brewery said-It said: "The danger is if the footbridge (which won’t be a thing of beauty) is built in isolation in such a sensitive position and the listed road bridge is handed back to public use in a year or so without adequate pavement and carriageway widths, the public pressure to retain the footbridge after the restoration will be considerable."

Then-But Nigel Adams rubbished the brewery's suggestions that the temporary bridge could end up becoming permanent, saying "I think the clue is in the word temporary."

Now for the clincher- Mr Bowe also told the meeting that they were looking at alternative sites for the footbridge within 50m of the bridge, where landowners were being supportive.

He spoke of proposals for permanent improvements like a separate footbridge once the old bridge is repaired.

Seems Mr Smith is right to have concerns IMHO. Never thought I would say that. If that temp footbridge is already there then it's a fait accompli. It would be extremely hard to justify building another bridge at that time. Stick to your guns Mr Smith, I think you might be seeing the picture far better than many others.

If he just sits back and says "OK, get on with it" then I too can see the "temporary" bridge suddenly becoming permanent and the road bridge being rebuilt without any adequate provisions for pedestrians because of the existence of the temporary bridge. Of course all the locals don't care about any of this, they just want a way of getting to the other side of the river ASAP and as they don't own the land nor will they be picking up the tab then it's hardly surprising to see all the hate directed at Humphrey Smith.

TBH I can see his point too.

[julianm]

Seems a solution is at hand, thanks to people who are not tts:
http://www.wetherbynews.co.uk/news/local/tadcaster...

[DMN]

Good. A nice two fingers at the "lord of the manor".

Edited by DMN on Saturday 16th January 15:47

[anonymous-user]

This is the same guy that bought nun Appleton priory back in the 1980s and just fenced it off and left it to rot?

[bobtail4x4]

the very same

[julianm]

A sorry tale again : http://samsmiths.info/forum/index.php?topic=2692.0

[gemini]

Preserving the past is one thing!
This and his other "ruins" are another!